Bit of a slippery slope fallacy re: the slavery, but I would counter that personal autonomy is the key. One cannot be personally autonomous as a slave. If someone wants to kill themselves for "stupid reasons" then that's their prerogative.. "Stupid" is relative and objective, though, so one man's poor reasoning is another's rational recourse. Our lives are our own, and while all efforts should be made to aid anyone not of sound mind to find alternatives, ultimately if someone wants to take their own life, that's up to them.

Tree wrote:You're treading into dangerous territory here. I can understand terminal illness where the person has absolutely no chance of long term survival, but rights being unalienable also means that you cannot simply forfeit them on a whim, just because you feel like it. It's how you can keep the masses from voluntarily signing off their freedoms to a tyrant.

You realize that you can only make that argument in America? Equally, which rights, if any, are "inalienable" is up for debate.

Tree wrote:So legally requiring medical professionals to kill someone or even to let them die just because they say they want to with no other consideration whatsoever other than "it's their right to end their life" (no it's not) is grossly immoral.

Do you make this claim on the basis of you above statement about inalienable rights - or is this your own subjective opinion (perhaps based on religious beliefs)? Again we have the issue of whose life is it anyway.

Kindest regards,

James

"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."The Age Of Reason

australopithecus wrote:Bit of a slippery slope fallacy re: the slavery, but I would counter that personal autonomy is the key. One cannot be personally autonomous as a slave. If someone wants to kill themselves for "stupid reasons" then that's their prerogative.. "Stupid" is relative and objective, though, so one man's poor reasoning is another's rational recourse. Our lives are our own, and while all efforts should be made to aid anyone not of sound mind to find alternatives, ultimately if someone wants to take their own life, that's up to them.

One cannot be autonomous if they're dead. In fact it's worse. A slave can still be rescued from his captivity at least.

Dragan Glas wrote:You realize that you can only make that argument in America? Equally, which rights, if any, are "inalienable" is up for debate.

Well I could probably be able to explain it from your point of view, but I don't know what your core values are.

australopithecus wrote:Bit of a slippery slope fallacy re: the slavery, but I would counter that personal autonomy is the key. One cannot be personally autonomous as a slave. If someone wants to kill themselves for "stupid reasons" then that's their prerogative.. "Stupid" is relative and objective, though, so one man's poor reasoning is another's rational recourse. Our lives are our own, and while all efforts should be made to aid anyone not of sound mind to find alternatives, ultimately if someone wants to take their own life, that's up to them.

One cannot be autonomous if they're dead. In fact it's worse. A slave can still be rescued from his captivity at least.

If death is the end result of exercising autonomy over oneself then it is what it is. It doesn't diminish the importance of the former or the validity of the later.

thenexttodie wrote:To start with, How about when a person has been drinking, should we kill him or let him commit suicide if he says he wants to die? .

So just to recap, next has no answer to the Netherlands guidelines for processing an euthanasia request and continues to ignore the evidence that blows his argument out of the water. Which is fine, next doesn't bother making coherent arguments and he's free to do so. This is why I don't engage you since you're an insincere troll and keep proving that point time and time again.

Tree wrote:You're treading into dangerous territory here. I can understand terminal illness where the person has absolutely no chance of long term survival, but rights being unalienable also means that you cannot simply forfeit them on a whim, just because you feel like it. It's how you can keep the masses from voluntarily signing off their freedoms to a tyrant.

How this sentence came into being regarding the original topic, I have no idea. Why is having a law as what the Netherlands has written akin to potentially allowing the masses to off themselves on a whim? Did you also not look deeper than the Breitbart article?

Tree wrote:What is the difference between consenting to be killed by another person and consenting to be a slave then? Should we allow people to voluntarily sell or place themselves into slavery and then enforce such slave contracts if they later change their minds and try to escape from their master? I don't think so, that's barbaric. Is voluntary cannibalism okay? Is necrophilia okay as long the deceased gave written consent before death? In many cases, consent alone is a poor basis to allow people to do anything they want. There's a certain level of degeneracy that just shouldn't be encouraged if you want to have a stable civilization.

Wat. Again did we read the same article?

Tree wrote:People can kill themselves for stupid reasons like their girlfriend left them or whatever and many times we will be unable to do anything about it before it's too late. DOESN'T mean we have to facilitate it, doesn't mean we have to make it easy for them, in fact painful deaths are a very good deterrent to many suicides. Even if we grant that it's "their right" to end their lives, it's also my right to refuse to kill them or to give money to someone who would. Don't make us complicit in this..

Again, did we read the same article?

Tree wrote:There's also the issue of the Hippocratic Oath and the fact that that for most humans, normal sane humans, killing other humans can be a very traumatic experience. You can quite literally get PTSD from it even when it's not your fault like let's say the guy just stood in your way and you didn't have time to slow down even with the legal speed, and I don't mean the phony Twitter PTSD you get from trolls calling you ugly. So legally requiring medical professionals to kill someone or even to let them die just because they say they want to with no other consideration whatsoever other than "it's their right to end their life" (no it's not) is grossly immoral. If I were a doctor I would quit. I'd rather scrub toilets for a living than be legally required to kill perfectly healthy, completely innocent human beings or even to facilitate their deaths.

The idea also comes into conflict with what officers are required to do. They're supposed to act when they see someone in danger including if they try to kill themselves.

And often suicide disrupts public life. Many choose to end their life by jumping in front of an incoming train which seriously disrupts traffic for hours, makes a huge mess and costs the public and private sector money to clean up. Many times someone suicidal will be a danger to others as well. .

Alright so to summarize your diatribe, basically if someone is suffering beyond their ability to cope through an incurable disease, crippling addiction, etc there should NEVER be a process or law in place to end that suffering. Read the actual requirements on the euthanasia law.

The problem we have here is that there are situations that one must consider this for the well being of a patient. Yes, there will always be alternatives and should always be preferable to ending a life but there will always be situations where "right to die" is granted. All the things you just described have nothing to do with what this law is actually trying to accomplish.

Personally, I have it written in my will that if I become a vegetable or I have experienced brain death I want to be taken off life support. My family knows my wishes and my expectation is that I will be allowed to die as the person I was, not the slab of meat that know inhabits a hospital bed. Why? Because it costs someone living money to keep me alive and causes undue burden on them and possibly "disrupts public life or cause PTSD in my loved ones." Do you not see why your argument is silly?

Now to be fair, while I think the spirit of the law is just there are always other issues. A lot of this depends on the personal integrity of the physician opting to invoke the Euthanasia law and generally I prefer there to be independent oversight making sure the process is carried out correctly. Now THAT would be a better argument to have on this subject rather than going off on this slavery tangent. I await to see if you are capable of making nuanced arguments.

"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20

Dustnite wrote:So just to recap, next has no answer to the Netherlands guidelines for processing an euthanasia request

Just to recap. I am Christian. You are an Atheist. I think Euthanasia is murder. You think it's OK as long as certain guidelines are involved. The man you all claim was rightfully euthanized was drinking that day.

Some few people maybe, might say...something like..."What the fuck? They killed him while he was drunk!". But not you. You think it's just fine. So I think this story very much illustrates a difference between me and you.

Dustnite wrote: ..and [Next] continues to ignore the evidence that blows his argument out of the water. Which is fine, next doesn't bother making coherent arguments and he's free to do so. This is why I don't engage you since you're an insincere troll and keep proving that point time and time again.

Dustnite, I have realized how aggressive and bitter I am towards people of opposing views online. Thank you for helping me realize this. I am much less so in real life. I do not hate any of you at all, or think any of you are stupid. Absolutely not.

australopithecus wrote:Doubling down on the insincere troll schtick isn't smart.

This is actually the only web forum I have participated in for a long time now. So it is only here where I have a chance to realize that I have been overly venomous and aggressive. It was actually AronRa who helped me realize this. He is generally respectable, courteous and sincere in all of his written and verbal debates that I know of.

australopithecus wrote:Doubling down on the insincere troll schtick isn't smart.

This is actually the only web forum I have participated in for a long time now. So it is only here where I have a chance to realize that I have been overly venomous and aggressive. It was actually AronRa who helped me realize this. He is generally respectable, courteous and sincere in all of his written and verbal debates that I know of.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." Charles Darwin

thenexttodie wrote:Just to recap. I am Christian. You are an Atheist. I think Euthanasia is murder. You think it's OK as long as certain guidelines are involved. The man you all claim was rightfully euthanized was drinking that day.

Some few people maybe, might say...something like..."What the fuck? They killed him while he was drunk!". But not you. You think it's just fine. So I think this story very much illustrates a difference between me and you.

Ok, so now you make the claim he was drunk as he was being euthanized. Something not reported in the articles I read except (surprise) a biased site like Daily Mail and Breitbart that sourced Daily Mail for their article. The man went to rehab 21 times and continued to lose his battle with alcoholism. His case was reviewed by the Support and Consultation on Euthanasia in the Netherlands medical council and went through the entire review process they have in place. Even if he was drunk the day of his euthanasia, he didn't just walk up to the local suicide booth and pay 50 cents for his lethal injection!

So, let's recap this again:

You, a Christian, believe that in every situation if that a person is suffering and have lost the will to continue going you will force them to endure that suffering (and most likely would consider him suffering in hell for eternity if he did not accept Jesus into his heart). How fucking noble of you! Instead of coming at this from a nuanced argument, you'd rather take the word of Daily Mail or Breitbart and concoct some scenario that will make you indignant. Instead of actually looking for ACTUAL issues with the law on the books, of which I can name several, instead you take the position that all human beings must endure their suffering regardless of the consequences as you stand judgement over their decisions. I agree, this does speak of the different between me and you. While I will attempt to be honest in my reasoning, you will not. While I will attempt to research an issue and try to inform myself of the truth, you will take the first thing that agrees with your mindset. I agree, this clearly exemplifies the difference between me and you.

"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20

This is actually the only web forum I have participated in for a long time now. So it is only here where I have a chance to realize that I have been overly venomous and aggressive. It was actually AronRa who helped me realize this. He is generally respectable, courteous and sincere in all of his written and verbal debates that I know of.

Honestly, I'd be willing to take you seriously if you took the time to research stuff and ask questions in good faith. Honestly, the kind of questions I expect from you are typically loaded like "When did you stop beating your wife?"

"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20

Alcoholism is a debilitating disease, that will lead to a slow horrible death if untreated.

Whatever your personal position on euthanasia is lets not pretend some guy had too much to drink and thought "hey I'm gonna ask for someone to kill me". And lets not pretend that those involved just say "yeah ok I'll get my syringe". There are obviously checks for soundness of mind and so forth. The real issue is whether or not the government should allow euthanasia not whether they should kill drunkards willy nilly without batting an eye lid.

Laurens wrote:Alcoholism is a debilitating disease, that will lead to a slow horrible death if untreated.

Whatever your personal position on euthanasia is lets not pretend some guy had too much to drink and thought "hey I'm gonna ask for someone to kill me". And lets not pretend that those involved just say "yeah ok I'll get my syringe". There are obviously checks for soundness of mind and so forth. The real issue is whether or not the government should allow euthanasia not whether they should kill drunkards willy nilly without batting an eye lid.

I'll also add that the Dutch have an issue with the law as written on the books since it requires the integrity of the physician to properly report the euthanasia request. Without proper oversight, this could only lead to problems later. I just find the fact that next chooses to become indignant at the mere thought of someone requesting euthanasia to be anathema with no regard for the actual facts involved. It's myopic and hypocritical.

"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20

Right let's go through some of the points listed there and keep in mind that what people here were arguing for was a RIGHT to end one's life as they see fit, not just under these special circumstances, so:

1. the patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement2. the patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)3. the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects, and options4. there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above5. the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, and the doctor must be present6. the patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)

This all sounds well and good but you need to define what "unbearable" is specifically. There are painful medication conditions but they don't actually kill you any time soon. I did not find the word "life-threatening" there at all. There's psychological pain that doesn't heal but doesn't kill you any time soon (although given rule 2 how would an alcoholic get there? that's a mental illness so maybe someone's not respecting their own rules fully). If we're talking years, that's enough time to expect medical technology to evolve significantly.

Also does prospect of improvement include temporary? Painkillers are a thing. What if in the next decade they came up with a really powerful painkiller that settles the issue?

Unless death is relatively close anyway, this doesn't seem right.

So as far as I can tell from this standard:

1. you don't need to actually be physically ill just have an "unbearable suffering" whatever that means2. your life's ending doesn't need to be imminent3. you don't even need to be immobilized

Not much. Mainly that we really should make decicions based on how reality is at this moment, and not on how things might be (or not be) in the future. Denying euthanasia because there might be a cure for ones unbearable suffering in ten years is, IMHO, immoral.

What's you position on euthanasia? Mine is yes, defenetly for terminal people, maybe for people with chronic, untreatable suffering depending on the case. This is in no way an easy question, even if are for euthanasia there is a huge conversation to be had about it's limitations (as shown by the news).

1. being in extreme physical pain2. death being imminent, let's say a matter of months but not years, a lot can happen between now and several years3. no possibility of cure, so death has to be inevitable

With that said I think I would oppose euthanasia altogether if someone discovered a wonder painkiller and permanently settled the #1 issue and if there was a way to constantly administer it so that you never experience even a minute of that pain again. No idea if that's possible, but waiting...